i, a man, am not a public official, nor a lawyer, i do not understand the words in their codes, statutes, regulations, or any of their writings, and am under no obligation to ever. i am an idiot to them, though i am not a moron, as an idiot is a private man, an outsider to their society, and i hope you will join me in claiming to be an idiot.

None of what i say can be called legal advice, as if any lawyer has a license to practice law to begin with. Seriously go to a lawyer's office and ask to see their law license... i imagine the best you will get is a BAR Card.

We all seem to forget who we are dealing with when a government agent writes us a letter or comes to our homes, or accosts us on the street or in our automobiles. We seem to only see the uniform (a costume), and not the man or woman wearing that costume and the mask of personage. They are merely men and women with no more rights than you or i. In that personage of public servant (they SERVE Us!) they have only duties, privileges, and obligations, not rights. Just as we can claim a trespass or interference of our rights by them as (wo)men, they as (wo)men can bring claims against us as (wo)men for a loss, harm, or injury against them. Their sovereign immunity ends at that costume, strip them of their personage and they are liable for all they do in the public realm. If you were pushed by a cop, make a claim (s)he a (wo)man wronged you, a (wo)man, and demand damages (compensation). As a man i have no right to stop you from going about your way on the public roads, so why do we not file claims on the men acting as police officers/(deputy) Sheriffs when they interfere with our right to go about our travels? Because all we see is the costume; STRIP him/her of that personage there and then. Why not ask him/her if (s)he is a (wo)man? When they say yes ask them if you have the right to stop a man on his travels as a man yourself, and he will say no. Ask him what makes him think he has the right to interfere with your rights, as he only has duties, obligations, and privileges, which does not grant him extra rights.

Another point i believe is prudent is the orders we take from public servants. Very few of us realize what we can do with these orders. When we go to a restaurant and order food, they expect compensation for taking your order. We can do the same thing with a "law enforcement officer." Why not record a fee schedule like restaurants do internally, only they call it a menu. You have the right to just compensation for any order the man in the costume gives you that you perform. Why not say for the order of shutting off my engine i charge $50, for getting out of the car i charge $150, for allowing you to handcuff me, getting into the back of your car and taken to jail i charge $50 per minute i do not have the liberty to move by my own free will, i charge $10,000 for the order of being fingerprinted, $50,000 for the order of taking my picture, and $500,000 for the order of giving my property (my name) to the man acting as police officer. The man acting as officer is liable for the bill for all the orders he gave you, and I would ask every time they tell me to do something, “is that an order?”. Hey these lawyers charge $3,000-$100,000 for the crap they do, and quite often even if your innocent you still get screwed by them working with their bosses. Yes my comrades, the first duty of a lawyer is to the court, not to you.

When we go into court for ridiculous reasons that involve no injured party such as permit, license, traffic, drug possession/sale (i do not promote the use of drugs), tax “evasion,” we always want to open our mouth and defend ourselves. Why? Are you a lawyer, do you know how to decode their codes, statutes, regulations, et cetera? Do you know these so-called “laws” are not written in common English as found in a Webster's or Oxford dictionary, but instead are written in a language called legalese, the definitions and terms of which are found in dictionaries like Black's or Bouvier's Law dictionaries. This legalese is There is no law that obligates a man to understand or learn their language. When you go into court and utter an intelligible phrase, they consider you to have spoken in their language, and they think you are now under their jurisdiction. Karl Lentz, a man who speaks extensively of the content above and that to follow, says, if I have understood him correctly, he only utters in court the following phrase: “I require pen, ink, and paper, and leave of court so that I may answer court correctly.” These people operate in a 2-d paper world, and ought be answered by paper. After listening to this man and what he has to say, I believe his strategy has merit. No longer will I file numerous page documents into their case, only one or three pages with a few sentences/questions and exhibits before the court to determine what man/woman is making a verifiable claim that I have wronged them, or that I owe a debt. This use of written answer to a court comes from the trial of the Regicides in 1660.

Having researched what has happened to our freedom and rights in this country, I have come across numerous people claiming to have the answer. Many of these people suggest putting stacks of paperwork into the state's court case, talking to the judge, making long winded statements in court, and confusing the judges and court officers. People who have done this have said that the court would brutally demoralize them and tease them, that is until they used what Karl Lentz had them put into the court. Many people have called into his talkshoe with success stories of how their children were returned to them after Child Protective Services stole them, cases involving child support where the father didn't want to pay the state their accounting fee for giving the mother the payment, just wanting to pay the mother directly, and other court issues. The man with the closest ideology, though I have heard no results, is Robert Menard of Canada, however I have not heard him talk about what do do in court. Most of what he talks about is writing letters, which is part of what Karl Lentz does.

The etymology dictionary link takes you to the main page itself, though it was supposed to take you to the word "idiot" to show that it did not initially mean the same as moron. There are no synonyms in law. That which is illegal is not always unlawful!